Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hippocampus/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:48, 27 June 2009 [1].

Hippocampus edit

Nominator(s): Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because it is an essential neuroscience article, has passed a thorough GA review, and appears to be ready. Note that the article uses the short-cite-plus-long-reflist format. I'm open to switching to inline citations if the article passes, but I find it very difficult to work actively with text that is cluttered by ref-cruft, so would prefer to leave this until the article is nearly stable. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about a section on history?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is some information about the history scattered through the article (mainly in the Functions section), and I'm not aware of a lot more that could be said. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you have seen this book it is in the further reading section [[2]] but page 9 discusses the history at some length. O'Keefe, John; Andersen, Per; Morris, Richard; David Amaral; Tim Bliss (2007). The hippocampus book. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-510027-1. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read that chapter, thanks, but it seems to me that a separate History section would mainly end up repeating things that are already in the article. If you could make suggestions about specific points that would belong in such a section, it would be helpful. Looie496 (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I took the liberty of fixing a few small typos in the refs) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments A number of small things.
Done, in lead.
Done, I've added a short paragraph at the end of the Anatomy section.
I'm totally unfamiliar with this -- I'll see what I can find out. If you would like to contribute some material here, it might be helpful. Looie496 (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I added this info to the first paragraph of the Evolution section, where it flows naturally. It could perhaps be worked into the Anatomy section instead if that would be better. Looie496 (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not so quickly reject the idea that the hippocampus has no link with olfaction-- see Vanderwolf's hippocampus as an olfacto-motor mechanism: were the classical anatomists right after all PMID 11718883 .
The current text doesn't say the hippocampus as no link with olfaction, it says "There continues to be some interest in hippocampal olfactory responses, particularly the role of the hippocampus in memory for odors, but few people believe today that olfaction is a primary function of the hippocampus.". Vanderwolf, who is quite elderly now, is one of the few. I don't see a need to change the wording here, but I'll add a cite of your source. Looie496 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stress section should mention that the hippocampus has a particularly high concentration of Mineralocorticoid receptor which is one of the reasons it is so affected. Also its vulnerability to excitotoxins.
Partly done. I changed the previous term, adrenal steroid receptors, to mineralocorticoid receptors as you suggest, which I believe is more correct. I'm not aware of evidence relating excitotoxins to stress, though. Looie496 (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is that this is too quirky to belong, but I'm open to further discussion. Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a shame there is no Wikipedia word processor which would allow insertion of references that could be shifted between hidden and visible.--LittleHow (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be helpful. A Village Pump proposal might be in order, although it probably wouldn't go anywhere. Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSupport I've only read the lead and the first section so far. Very readable to a lay reader, well done. A few suggestions:
  • Lead: I don't believe it proven that epilepsy can cause damage in the hippocampus in humans. It can certainly result from an already damaged hippocampus, as the body text indicates. Your source (PMID 15771000) says "temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) with hippocampal sclerosis is probably the single most common human epilepsy, and the one most intensely studied." This is stronger than the "often" in the body text, and may be a more pertinent fact for the lead than the idea that epilepsy may cause hippocampal damage.
Hmm. I guess there is a subtle issue here—does TLE cause hippocampal damage, or does some factor X cause both TLE and hippocampal damage? In practice if there is some factor X that causes TLE, most people wouldn't distinguish between factor X and TLE, I think. If you would like to take a shot at changing the wording here, I would be interested in seeing it. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Functions: "neural plasticity" is mentioned without enough information/context for the reader to work out what it means and why this is relevant to memory. Could you mention the decade(s) that HM was studied so we know where this fits into history.
I changes "neural plasticity" to "activity-driven changes in synaptic connections"; does that help? Regarding H.M., he was studied almost continuously from surgery in 1957 to death in 2008—since both date are already in the paragraph, it seems like it would be redundant to restate them, but I'm open to suggestions on how to do it. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead & spacial memory: the term "action potential" is opaque to the general reader. Can we find an accurate but lay phrase with with to explain this important neuro jargon.
I'm afraid I have to resist this one. A reader who doesn't know what an action potential is, is not really going to understand this even if we use another term such as "spike" or "impulse", and an in-article explanation would be much too distracting. It seems to me that the right solution is to use the correct term and wiki-link it, as the article does. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More to follow tomorrow. Colin°Talk 20:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for copy-editing; looking forward to any more comments that come along. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what MOS has to say about these various styles of mentioning terms: "theta", "LIA", sharp waves, "ripples". Perhaps Sandy can advise/fix?
I think Sandy has already looked at this, but perhaps another look wouldn't hurt. Looie496 (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The language may sometimes be a little too informal. Some examples: "a vexing question", "One of the most interesting aspects", "came up empty", "at anywhere close to the rate", "The story for fish is more complex". I was reluctant to mention this as it lightened a complex subject. I'm not pressing for those, or others, to be changed unless others feel it would improve the article.
I'm open to changing any or all of these if others agree with Colin -- or anybody who wants to can of course take a shot at copy-editing them. Looie496 (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of paragraphs that end without a citation. Perhaps this text is sourced to the same as the beginning of the next paragraph. It would be clearer if no paragraph appeared unsourced. Of course, if these are genuinely unsourced sentences, then that needs to be fixed ASAP.
This is a problem I've never found a good solution for. It looks awful to me to cite the same reference over and over, for sentence after sentence. But anything else leads people to wonder whether things are referenced. Aesthetically the best solution, I feel, is to put the ref for a group of related sentences at the end, but I've found that people won't accept that. My practice has been to put the ref on the first of the sentences, and then if any individual sentence is questioned, repeat the ref for it. Looie496 (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I work on the assumption that a ref applies to the preceding text in that paragraph, back up to the previous ref (if any), and that the biggest unit one can cover with a ref is a paragraph. If you have three sentences from the one source, but put the ref after the first sentence, that would confuse me. I'm not aware that style is common. I have no problem with sourcing a whole paragraph to one or even a few refs, and placing the note at the end. What I've complained about on another FA is where three, four or five refs are used for a single sentence or even just a single point. If a set of sentences truly is the amalgam of four sources, then four refs go at the end. But that should be uncommon, particularly if one is building from secondary reviews and books rather than primary research. To my eyes, the sentences between a ref and the end of a paragraph (with no ref on the end) appear unsourced. I would be interested if other editors think that style is OK or have advice here. Colin°Talk
As I said, I agree with this completely in principle, but when I tried to do it that way in Brain, there were numerous complaints about things being unreferenced. Finding an approach that (a) satisfies people, and (b) isn't too ugly, is not an easy problem. To my understanding, the MOS doesn't prescribe what should be done here. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I enjoyed reading this and was surprised that I could. It was hard work in places but I think I got the gist of the difficult stuff, which is all I can expect.
Thanks! Looie496 (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caveat: I haven't reviewed the the sources to any degree and have no education in anatomy. I can't judge whether the facts are accurate and that any controversies have been given appropriate weight.
Colin°Talk 22:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - beginning a read-through. I will make straightforward changes but feel free to revert if I change the meaning accidentally. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I know little about the subject matter, so I'm taking the content on trust. I found this informative and readable, and it appears to have benefited from light copyediting from Casliber and others. I would prefer an article at this level not to still contain redirects, but on the whole I believe that it reaches FA standard jimfbleak (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks—I'm afraid without the redirects the article would be much too long. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Jimfbleak is correct on many points. Informative and well sourced. The nominator says it passed a "good article" review. Possibly for good reason. I see no reason to oppose this article.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for a single image concern:

  • File:792echidna64232.jpg: brainmuseum.org gives permission for only educational or research purposes. "Free" images per Wikimedia/Wikipedia's definition is the freedom to use the image for any purposes, including commercial and to make derivative works.

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought that image was okay when I uploaded it, but clearly I was wrong. Fortunately it isn't critical for the article. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed except the reflexive link from hippocampal formation to hippocampus. This is a case where a separate article ought to exist but hasn't been written yet -- I'm not sure of the proper way to handle such things. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Further reading could be alphabetical using the same format (last name first) as References. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hippocampus/archive1&oldid=1085529705"